Mohammedanism must be eradicated.
A good start would be to destroy the stupid black rock in Mecca with a surgical strike, accompanied by a warning to evaportate the entire city if the Mohammedan mayhem does not stop.
60 comments
And you fail to grasp that this is exactly why they hate you?
"In this world, hatred can not be destroyed by hatred. Only by non-hatred can it be destroyed. That is the eternal law."
I'm sorry, you lost me at "the stupid black rock." What are you, four? *headdesks*
And Americans wonder why the rest of the world thinks that they're so ignorant.
@lifeless1
I don't want to defend the fundie, but the "black rock in Mecca" isn't the Dome of the Rock. They're different holy sites.
Anyway, I'm sure that destroying the single most holy site in Islam is a sure-fire way to get them to stop wanting to kill Americans.
Why do these idiots have to keep coming up with new names for other religions and belief systems? It's ISLAM. Not "Mohammedanism".
Destroying Mecca would be the single WORST thing anyone could do in trying to control extremism amongst Muslims. Even Israel, which has always been at odds with the Muslim world, wouldn't dare try it. Hell, even a crazy bastard like Kim Jong-il knows better than to mess with Mecca. Even if we ignore the moral implications of it, the violence (and mass causalities) that would erupt is nearly incomprehensible. It wouldn't "serve as a warning"; it would rile up the extremists even more, and create a whole ton of new extremists in the process. The act of destroying Mecca is, in itself, an extremist act.
Not to mention the fact that your country is supposed to be allied with Saudi Arabia, and that a huge portion of your international trade relies on maintaining friendly relations with them. Bombing your allies is usually a pretty bad idea... especially when they have the oil. And I can guarantee that the world won't sit back and twiddle its thumbs while you run around, destroying holy sites on FRIENDLY territory.
Basically, the way 9/11 got Americans and westerners wound up is NOTHING compared to what you'd see if Mecca was bombed. Only a complete idiot would advocate such a moronic plan.
Yeah, because it worked SO well when some of Osama's people did the same thing to you; struck at the heart of your capitalist mecca.
Wrong, it made some of you even more rabid in their fundamentalist "Christianism".
"Sounds like a plan since we know how well terrorist destroyed the USA on 9-11. That attack turned us into piles of spineless wimps."
Well, to be fair, you were always spineless wimps. It could hardly get any worse.
Yeah, that'd teach 'em, eh?
Because destroying temples worked so well on Jews.
@Valheru....
fuck you. I'm not Muslim, I live in a country that's been badly affected by Muslim extremists, and I'd fight the US over that. I've had it with the smug snakes that seem to populate the US' right wing.
Muslims do not worship their prophet Muhammad, therefore they are Mohammedans.
The immediate result of Westbrook's suggestion would be the cutting off of oil, and the uprising of all Muslims in the West. Westerners in Islamic countries would be butchered and someone would eventually lose a full scale nuclear war.
It is frightening to think that some in America can be so stupid as not to realise the consequences of what they are (only, I hope) suggesting.
Right-wing Fundamentalist Christianity must be eradicated.
A good start would be to destroy every Southern Baptist church with surgical strikes, accompanied by Pat Robertson being publicly tortured to death if Religious Right mayhem does not stop.
...what? You don't like the sound of that, Westbrook & all your fundie ilk? Too extreme for you?
Well, now you know how you sound to everyone else. And why 9/11 happened.
Christianemism must be eradicated.
A good start would be to destroy the stupid city in the middle of Rome with a surgical strike, accompanied by a warning to evaportate the entire city if the Christianian mayhem does not stop.
What the hell is Mohammedanism? Why not just say "Islam?"
And sure, blowing up religious sites is the best way to get Muslims to stop being Muslim and embrace Christianity and be our friends.
Yet if a Muslim made a post suggesting that it would be a good idea to blow up a megachurch, Westbrook would probably be the first one screaming about how "Mohammedianism" is a violent religion unlike Christianity.
Oh and BTW, Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, a country which is one of our allies (remember Desert Storm? Where do you think we launched from?) and which sells us considerable amounts of oil. I don't think they'd take kindly to the destruction of the most holy site of Islam located on their soil.
"Mohammedanism must be eradicated."
What the hell is wrong with you people? Can't you just use the same words as everyone else?
"A good start would be to destroy the stupid black rock in Mecca with a surgical strike, accompanied by a warning to evaportate the entire city if the Mohammedan mayhem does not stop."
Isn't that sort of what the terrorists tried with us when the flew a couple of planes into a building?
How can you really not see the similarity between yourself and them?
You know, it really bugs me when people on this site fail to do the research: The Black Stone (its standard English name) in the Ka'bah is of great importance in the Mohammedan (see below) faith, and its destruction (especially if accompanied by the destruction of the rest of the Ka'bah) would have effects far more profound than the destruction of a few financial buildings, however famous. That's not to say that those effects would be the ones that Westbrook desires, but comparing the actions suggested to 9/11 is missing the point; a better comparison would be the destruction of the second temple in Jerusalem, without which the entire Jewish faith would be quite different from how it is today.
Second, the term "Mohammedan" is not a recent coinage - it is first attested in 1681, and "Mahometan" in 1529. That Mohammedans do not worship their "prophet" is irrelevant - it is common, in the Christian tradition, to label heresies (and, for that matter, following the Reformation, Protestant denominations) after their founders - Marcionites did not worship Marcion, Lutherans do not worship Martin Luther, Calvinists do not worship John Calvin, etc. "Islam" mean "submission," implicitly, to the will of God, and "muslim" means "one who submits." To use the term is therefore to acknowledge the validity of the Mohammedan claim to divine inspiration, which I refuse to do.
"What's "Mohammedanism"? A religion that thinks that Mohamed Ali is the messiah?"
It's an archaic, if still "correct," English word to describe the Islamic religion (i.e., followers of Mohammed.) I've seen at least one 19th century author use it (I think it was Thoreau?) Although the correct spelling would be "Mohammedan ."
And while I hate the religion of Islam, I don't hate all Muslims (just the stupid mysogynistic ones-and even then, they were raised to be that way.) Especially since, you know, bombing Mecca would probably promptly result in at least ten new 9/11s, and I don't want to start hating almost all Muslims.
@christopher: Wait, so you're saying that because the Byzantines thought that Islam was a Christian heresy, it's still appropriate to call it by the name it was given then?
Bollocks. Determining whether a religion is divinely inspired or not is impossible. Determining who they worship, whether or not you believe that being exists, is actually quite easy. Muslims worship God. They do not worship Muhammad. Therefore they should not be called Muhammadans. Unless you're going to come up with an alternate name for Christians and Jews to make a point about not finding their religion divinely inspired either.
I was slightly confused there for a second. I thought I was wrong in thinking that the Dome of the Rock was in Jerusalem...
Bit of a mistake to make though, Mecca/Makkah is in Saudi Arabia, The Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem is in Israel...
"evaportate"
Cool! A new word!
@LadyJafaria: Mohammedanism *is* a Christian heresy, in the sense that it accepts Jesus of Nazareth as an important prophet, but does not otherwise agree with orthodox Christian views, which is about as narrow a definition of "Christian heresy" as one can formulate without excluding those movements which are universally regarded as such.
The term "Jew" is not a problem in this context - it's a tribal name applied to adherents of that tribe's traditional religion, which, while potentially problematic in other regards, does not imply divine inspiration.
The term "Christian" is more problematic, as it means "following the teachings of the annointed one" - something like "Yeshuan" would probably be better, or perhaps "Nazarene." I don't go out of my way to use such terms, but it doesn't bother me if others do.
You may believe that determining divine inspiration is impossible, but I disagree, at least as regards negative determinations - it may be impossible to prove that a religion is divinely inspired, but to prove the reverse (at least as pertains to a deity that is supposedly "ar-Rahman, ar-Rahim" = "the most merciful, the most compassionate") is often anything but difficult.
You do know that Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, our ally and major supplier of our oil. So, if that did happen Saudi Arabia would cut off our oil access and we would have another oil crisis. Also, bombing Mecca would just create more fundamentalists Muslims and alienate us from our allies.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
